Freedom of speech? Or abuse of our freedoms in order to incite?

Let me first say, I couldn't stomach watching the entire clip of the "movie." I made it half way. I'm fairly confident anyone else that can sit through that much would probably come to some of the same conclusions I have, though probably not all.

I'll also say that the maniacal and homicidal rage this POS has incited is unbelievably sad and irretrievably stupid. There are no excuses. However, the 'stupidity' needs to be considered. To wit, we're talking about Libya and Egypt. I've only done cursory research on each education system, but if one wants to argue literacy rates and what that really means, our nation probably doesn't fare much better. But I do believe it's fair to say neither country's population has had a liberal exposure to media of any form, and certainly not outside media w/ out a solid censoring from Big Brother. I think this is proven true just by watching the clip; I mean, let's say any Muslim or person of Middle Eastern descent were to make a similar movie with Jesus in the role of Mohammad, it would be little more than a joke to any of us. Forget motivations and any political/religious connotations, this thing isn’t watchable outside a high school AV project. It's horribly laughable. With the possible exception of only the most certifiable religious zealots (and the Klanesque bigots looking for any opportunity), the person responsible would merely be a subject of ridicule here, nothing more.

The adherence to the word and teaching of fanatics certainly lends to the 'stupidity' here. This is true anywhere, granted. Initial reports state that a number of the rioters hadn't even seen the 'film' but had heard about it through leaders or the crowd. And it is the ultra-conservatives one has to worry about violence with anywhere, as well. Gee, I wonder who’s stirring the pot.

Like I said, no excuses though. At least one American has been killed, more injured. Two embassies attacked. All because of a ridiculous excuse for a ‘movie.’ (I do apologize for returning to the quotes around “movie” and “stupidity”; I vow I’m not following the moronic format of FHNC; I’m merely using “stupidity” in the context I lay out, not that the populace is inherently dumb, and I refuse to refer to this POS as an actual film, movie, or short, therefore the sarcastic quote font)

Now, Sam Bacile is the writer and director of this garbage. He supposedly financed this masterpiece w/ $5 million from one hundred Jewish donors. All this news is still breaking while I write this, but this is Bacile’s reaction:

“Bacile, an American citizen who said he produced, directed and wrote the two-hour film, said he had not anticipated such a furious reaction.
“I feel sorry for the embassy. I am mad,” Bacile said.”

He feels sorry for a building and he’s mad?! He’s a liar. Anyone that can generate 5 mil for such a project has certainly heard the story of the Danish cartoonist and that backlash. And he never anticipated this kind of “furious reaction”?!!! Who’s buying that?

Which begs the question: what’s the true motivation here? I fully believe in our freedom of speech and expression, but can anyone truly watch this garbage and believe it was meant for any other reason than to incite? This isn’t art or expression. It’s a cattle prod to the privates of inciteable Muslims. And I fully believe the reaction it’s generated was indeed intended. The timing sure is coincidental, of all days, and many in the crowd in Egypt supposedly chanting “we are Osama”.
I’m not one for civil litigation for the most part, but in this case, if all this proves true, I certainly hope the family of the envoy that was murdered and anyone else so affected sue this guy and any cohorts back to the Stone Age. I want him living “in a van down by the river.”

Not to make light of the situation, but the writer in me wonders if this isn’t the most elaborate suicide plot this side of “Seven Pounds.” (Sorry for the spoiler alert, but if you haven’t seen it by now….) I mean, who in his right mind puts this together and immediately cops to it? Ya gotta wanna get capped, don’tcha? At least Rushdie actually published exceptional prose, true art. Putting something out like this, you have to know you’re life will probably not be safe ever again. So you put out the worst, most inflammatory crappola you can think of? At the very least, his donors must be wondering, “Where’d all the money go to?” He almost had to be thinking one faction or the other would come after him.

Let me first say, I couldn't stomach watching the entire clip of the "movie." I made it half way. I'm fairly confident anyone else that can sit through that much would probably come to some of the same conclusions I have, though probably not all.

I'll also say that the maniacal and homicidal rage this POS has incited is unbelievably sad and irretrievably stupid. There are no excuses. However, the 'stupidity' needs to be considered. To wit, we're talking about Libya and Egypt. I've only done cursory research on each education system, but if one wants to argue literacy rates and what that really means, our nation probably doesn't fare much better. But I do believe it's fair to say neither country's population has had a liberal exposure to media of any form, and certainly not outside media w/ out a solid censoring from Big Brother. I think this is proven true just by watching the clip; I mean, let's say any Muslim or person of Middle Eastern descent were to make a similar movie with Jesus in the role of Mohammad, it would be little more than a joke to any of us. Forget motivations and any political/religious connotations, this thing isn’t watchable outside a high school AV project. It's horribly laughable. With the possible exception of only the most certifiable religious zealots (and the Klanesque bigots looking for any opportunity), the person responsible would merely be a subject of ridicule here, nothing more.

The adherence to the word and teaching of fanatics certainly lends to the 'stupidity' here. This is true anywhere, granted. Initial reports state that a number of the rioters hadn't even seen the 'film' but had heard about it through leaders or the crowd. And it is the ultra-conservatives one has to worry about violence with anywhere, as well. Gee, I wonder who’s stirring the pot.

Like I said, no excuses though. At least one American has been killed, more injured. Two embassies attacked. All because of a ridiculous excuse for a ‘movie.’ (I do apologize for returning to the quotes around “movie” and “stupidity”; I vow I’m not following the moronic format of FHNC; I’m merely using “stupidity” in the context I lay out, not that the populace is inherently dumb, and I refuse to refer to this POS as an actual film, movie, or short, therefore the sarcastic quote font)

Now, Sam Bacile is the writer and director of this garbage. He supposedly financed this masterpiece w/ $5 million from one hundred Jewish donors. All this news is still breaking while I write this, but this is Bacile’s reaction:

“Bacile, an American citizen who said he produced, directed and wrote the two-hour film, said he had not anticipated such a furious reaction. “I feel sorry for the embassy. I am mad,” Bacile said.”

He feels sorry for a building and he’s mad?! He’s a liar. Anyone that can generate 5 mil for such a project has certainly heard the story of the Danish cartoonist and that backlash. And he never anticipated this kind of “furious reaction”?!!! Who’s buying that?

Which begs the question: what’s the true motivation here? I fully believe in our freedom of speech and expression, but can anyone truly watch this garbage and believe it was meant for any other reason than to incite? This isn’t art or expression. It’s a cattle prod to the privates of inciteable Muslims. And I fully believe the reaction it’s generated was indeed intended. The timing sure is coincidental, of all days, and many in the crowd in Egypt supposedly chanting “we are Osama”.

I’m not one for civil litigation for the most part, but in this case, if all this proves true, I certainly hope the family of the envoy that was murdered and anyone else so affected sue this guy and any cohorts back to the Stone Age. I want him living “in a van down by the river.”

Not to make light of the situation, but the writer in me wonders if this isn’t the most elaborate suicide plot this side of “Seven Pounds.” (Sorry for the spoiler alert, but if you haven’t seen it by now….) I mean, who in his right mind puts this together and immediately cops to it? Ya gotta wanna get capped, don’tcha? At least Rushdie actually published exceptional prose, true art. Putting something out like this, you have to know you’re life will probably not be safe ever again. So you put out the worst, most inflammatory crappola you can think of? At the very least, his donors must be wondering, “Where’d all the money go to?” He almost had to be thinking one faction or the other would come after him.

I'm not for changing our laws, snap. What I'm pondering here is whether this can actually qualify as freedom of speech or expression. Because the "film" doesn't seem to be a legitimate take on Islam, Mohammed, or Muslims. It seems specifically geared to incite, period. And THAT is not a protected freedom.

I was looking for the date of release last night but couldn't find it. If it came out 4 months ago one has to wonder if the "outrage" was kept bottled until yesterday by the pot stirrers in the ME, most certainly.

I am not even Muslim or from the Middle Eastern and I found this "movie" to be a POS!!!! Many of the bad actors are white with the worst brown face makeup and recite their version or another's religion. Yeah, it seems to me that this spitbox was made just to jab the Muslims and to get press/money for himself and his "church."

Once you tune out the god babble, it kinda looks like Gilligan's Island outtakes strung together.

My wife watches those B movies on the sci-fi channel. She say's they are funny because they are bad. There is some artistic merit in "badly done", and the trailer definitely sunk to that level. Art it be.

It is your own free speech you are taking a whizz on. You might want to stop.

No they don't. Have a look at a Pollock and tell me the message. Do you think the message will be the same for you and Fred Phelps? If the message cannot be defined, just what is the artist responsible for?

Mohammed sure used to love bacon. He'd wake up in the mornings and tell his nine-year old wife to "get in that kitchen and fix me a bacon sammich!" Does that incite you? Are you stuck in the 14th Century?

Like I said, no excuses for the rioting or murders, no excuses for anyone so off-the-wall that such behavior is expected. But the point of this blog is that last word: expected. Just like yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater, if the reaction is a foregone conclusion and someone gets hurt because of it, the inciter is particularly to blame.

Yes, it was meant to incite some kind of reaction. Every single artistic work or piece of text is supposed to do so.

When I say ghosts don't exist, there is no god, the Dali Lama's a jerk, Jesus never existed, or Muhammad was a pedophile, I fully expect a reaction. The hope is to engage in a discussion that will leave folks more informed. Rarely ends up that way.

No, it wasn't an abuse of freedom of speech. I think it's dangerous to suggest that it was. Problems happen and get covered up when there's things you can't question.

The fact that these folks are so easily riled up to an angry, violent, murderous mob is a problem. Pretending that it's not their own fault is a greater one.

"Yes, it was meant to incite some kind of reaction. Every single artistic work or piece of text is supposed to do so."

Sorry, but that's incorrect. Art is meant to elicit reaction. This was clearly made to incite violence. And therein lies the difference.
And nobody has been pretending the mob violence isn't the mob's fault. But pretending this thing was made for anything other than to incite that violence is ignorant.

Discover something called a dictionary and a thesaurus. Elicit and incite are not synonyms of each other.
Then take a couple minutes and watch the clip. We have the freedom of speech in this country. There is no freedom to incite to violence.

I saw the clip before I began to respond to you. I didn't comment on it, because the content isn't relevant. The acts of violence are. But, for your benefit, here's my opinion on the movie...

The fact that 5 million bucks was the budget for that movie is insane. Give me 20 grand and two months and I'll produce something that eclipses it in quality. I can't comment on how it would survive any real fact-checking. In any case, the intent is clearly satirical.

My analogy was about taking some fictional thing that people liked, and making fun of it.

I could have easily replace Jesus and John with Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney. Peter Rabbit and Scrooge McDuck. Darth Vader and Darth Maul. Captian Kirk and Captian Picard.

I could have been more detailed about what Jesus and John would be doing. Are there women going to be involved? Maybe animals? WWJD.... to a chicken?

My analogy is accurate. So, I want to know what Muhammad would do... to a chicken.

If my analogy was NOT accurate, then that must mean that Islam isn't complete crap like buddism, christianity, wicca, scientology, hinduism, and others. In that case, explain to me why Islam isn't complete crap like all the other religions.

You can be mad at the people who made this movie, and say it's without taste. You can suggest that the motivations weren't honorable. You can wish harm on the folks who made the movie. This is all fair play. Honestly, I agree with these sentiments.

However, the moment you come within a mile of suggesting their actions might be illegal, you start sliding into a reality where people have to be careful about what they say.

Your analogy is garbage, but thanks for the equivalent diatribe trying to say otherwise. Even more ridiculous. Well done.

Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater isn't protected speech. Casually mentioning 'bomb' at the airport isn't free speech. If some moron wants to gather youths and fellow morons together to discuss the "plight of the Aryan Race", that is free speech. If the leading moron uses speech to incite violence, it isn't free speech.

If you've actually watched the clip then it should be apparent that it was made for no other reason than to inflame. There isn't a shred of artistic intent. Just because someone films something and calls it a 'film' or a 'movie', that doesn't automatically make it so. And if the intent, which couldn't be clearer, is to incite violence - which from the faction it's aimed towards is regrettably inevitable - then, if it's not a crime, it's a severe perversion of what we supposedly hold dear.

If you know a dog goes bat!@$% when he hears a doorbell and will bite the most unfamiliar person in the room if he hears one, and you ring the bell, and that person gets bitten, sure, the dog did it. But you're the !@#wipe that made it happen. And you're criminally responsible.

"You've come very close to comparing the attackers to dogs. Interesting."

That's incredibly disappointing. Pity your mind works that way.

Can you make fun of Islam? Certainly. Anyone in this country can. And I celebrate such freedom. This wasn't made simply to make fun of someone or something; it was made with the intent to incite others to violence. Period. Read the NYT piece I posted this morning.

"If you know a dog goes bat!@$% when he hears a doorbell and will bite the most unfamiliar person in the room if he hears one, and you ring the bell, and that person gets bitten, sure, the dog did it. But you're the !@#wipe that made it happen. And you're criminally responsible."

I'll say it again, you've come very close to comparing the attackers to dogs. From the text you posted, I'm not sure how else one is supposed to interpret it.

Again, you say "Yes and no!" I can make fun of islam, but I can't hurt people's feelings.

In any case, we're beyond any rational conversation on this subject. I don't think you were capable of it to begin with, and I'm tired of your double-speak.

In my opinion, you're wrong in a very basic way. As long as you're willing to limit freedom of speech, you will remain to be so.

Nice try, arti, however, there are limits to free speech as you well know. The creators had intent to do harm and have admitted same. By all means continue to support your distorted view of the right to say anything, while a weak cover for your racism, whatever floats your boat.

"Mohammed sure used to love bacon. He'd wake up in the mornings and tell his nine-year old wife to "get in that kitchen and fix me a bacon sammich!" Does that incite you? Are you stuck in the 14th Century?"

Have you ever been to Egypt ( no, watching a History Channel show about the pyramids does not count)? I have while in the Corps back in the 90's and yes, some of their beliefs are more like 14th Century than the rest of the world (although some of your buddies on the LJW could give them a run for their money). Add in that many are not well off and they have Fox-like news programs that feed them the same kind of BS that Faux does here. Grab a Weegie Board and ask Tiller about extremists and their14th Century views (yes, we have them here). Ask yourself why this "man of God" went ahead with this "movie" when the last time he tried a stunt like this (burning the Quran) it incited riots(calling it a movie is a stretch as it seems like a bad SNL skit)? Asking questions is good, asking the right questions is better!

If you read the news you might think that the only two religions on earth are Islam and Protestant Christian. Why? Because they are the only two who are at each others throats? I think that all Muslims should be horrified and furious at this movie. Also, manipulated as they movie was made to incite them. But, some things are worth fighting for, it is up to the individual to decide just what that is.

While I think you may be right on some level, it's fair to say this 'movie' had something to do with the attacks, if only used as a tool to incite. It wouldn't be surprising that ultra-conservatives in these countries timed their "outrage" to coincide w/ the date, but the movie seems to have been the prod some used to stir up the crowds.

"Though reports were still sketchy, it appeared that a militant jihadist group, Ansar al-Sharia, took advantage of the Benghazi protest to stage an armed assault that overwhelmed the Libyan security force at the consulate.

At a news conference, Mr. Romney claimed that the administration had delivered “an apology for America’s values.” In fact, it had done no such thing:"

Hasn't any characterization of Mohammed in ANY way other than complete respect drawn out violent reaction? And obviously our embassies and citizens in such countries have been subjected to such attacks before, as mob violence there is common. So yeah, I'd say they're "capable."

And I say again, watch the clip. This isn't art; it was made for the sole purpose of inciting violence. That's not a freedom.

It does nothing to incite violence. They could make a similar movie about atheism tomorrow and I wouldn't care. Now there may be some other atheists that hate the movie and cause some harm to it's writers or - in their absence, suitable proxies. Does that tell you the hatred is incited by the movie, or is it just looking for an excuse to get out.

No, the movie remains protected because:

A: It does not incite violence. At best it might be a good excuse to go do something you'd do anyway..
2. It is unconstitutional for American's to be deprived of rights because of the actions of people outside of American jurisdiction.

You couldn't stomach but half of it. I watched the whole thing. Some of it was funny, some of it was offensive. None of it would make a person violent. It is nothing but an excuse for violence.

It's wrong to even consider censoring an American citizen for the acts of people in a different country. Millions have died to protect the constitution. You should be ashamed for using this tragedy to undermine one of it's most important amendments.

"It's wrong to even consider censoring an American citizen for the acts of people in a different country."

Right. Because everything all Americans do is righteous. Gotcha. And for the umpteenth time, freedom of speech is NOT a catch-all. If the sole intent of someone's words, actions, "art" is to incite violence - IT'S A CRIME.

"Millions have died to protect the constitution."

Pretty sure none of them died in order for ignorant bigots to abuse our freedoms in such a way it purposely causes violence and the deaths of more Americans.

"I'm ashamed to see an American do what you are doing."

Thanks for admitting your hypocrisy. Coulda sworn we were talking about freedom of speech and I am just exercising my right to express an opinion.

No, there isn't. This is not a public forum, the owners of this forum have kindly invited us for tea in the equivalent of their livingroom. To call any action by the owners censorship debases the English language, don't you see? The word becomes meaningless, or, in the case of those on this forum screaming censorship, it amounts to no more than screaming. " Wah, I didn't get my way!"

1an official who examines books, films, news, etc. that are about to be published and suppresses any parts that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security:
the report was approved by the military censors
the movie has been given an adults-only rating by film censors
Psychoanalysis an aspect of the superego which is said to prevent certain ideas and memories from emerging into consciousness.
[from a mistranslation of German Zensur 'censorship', coined by Freud]
2(in ancient Rome) either of two magistrates who held censuses and supervised public morals.
verb
[with object]
examine (a book, film, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it:
the report had been censored ‘in the national interest’
the letters she received were censored

Derivatives

censorial
Pronunciation: /-ˈsɔːrɪəl/ adjective
censorship
noun

Origin:
mid 16th century (in censor (sense 2 of the noun)): from Latin, from censere 'assess'

For an explanation of the difference between censor and censure, see censure (usage).

censor in other Oxford dictionaries
Definition of censor in US English dictionary

The world corporation and it web site are private property. You are allowed to post withing the guidelines spelled out in the TOS.

Basically, this forum is like Dillons. They want you to come in because when you do they make money. Also like Dillons, they can toss you out.

Only the government can censor. The World Corporation isn't government.

Hope that clears things up. Generally if you don't call people patently derogatory names or use offensive language - or spam - they will let you say what is on your mind. I think they do a pretty fair job.

Entire TV shows have made their reputations on trying to inflame Christians, conservatives, liberals, and just about any other group. Why does Islam always get a free pass? If the tea party went and burned down Trey Parker's house after something on South Park, no one would say that it was Parker's fault.

People burned an embassy and killed an ambassador, none of whom had the slightest thing to do with the movie. There is no way that is okay. There is definitely no way we should be making excuses for it.

It is illegal to specifically incite a riot. It is not illegal to make people angry, insult them, or hurt their feelings. This is not inciting a riot.

I wasn't speaking specifically about this blog, but in general. But saying the movie incited them takes the responsibility at least partially off the people who did the killing and put it on the people who made the movie. The movie was just an excuse for violence. If it hadn't been that, they would have found some other reason.

Couldn't agree more that this clip was manipulated in order to whip others into a frenzy and the date was no coincidence.
Nor am I saying we should surrender our freedoms to avoid anything. What I'm saying is this was made for one purpose and one purpose only: to incite radical Muslims to violence. Freedom of speech is about discussion, persuasion, opinion, artistic license, an exchange of ideas and ideals; it is NOT about inciting violence. That's criminal.

Ultimately, while this video is a cringe-inducingly clumsy piece of junk, its intent seems comparable to how South Park has lampooned Mormonism or Scientology, i.e. mocking the extreme leaps of faith inherent to the religion’s theology. And the video was not initially translated into Arabic, so I'd suspect that the intended audience was most likely American/English-speaking. The fact that Muslim fundamentalists are more violent and incitable than Mormons or Scientologists does not mean that such expressions of ridicule equate to deliberate incitement or sedition. So I’d be surprised to see litigation against the filmmakers.

"The fact that Muslim fundamentalists are more violent and incitable..."

....and the makers of this crappola knew this and exploited it. That's criminal. I used the example earlier: if an Aryan holds meetings in his house, distributes pamphlets, movies, posters that urges others to "stand up for the white race", that's freedom of speech. If the same person does the same thing with the clear intent to incite violence, that's criminal.

I respectfully disagree. I think they knew this was poking a hornet's nest, but I doubt any of them wanted to see embassies being overrun or jihadist attacks with loss of life. While it would have been naive/stupid of them to think that this outcome wasn't entirely possible, I just doubt that it was their primary motive. If they suggest otherwise in their reactions, then perhaps they open themselves to being accused. But, I would much sooner estimate their intent to be to persuade Americans less familiar with Islam that it is an absurd and inherently violent religion.

And, to address your neo-Nazi metaphor, I think that tone plays a major role, and because this clip makes lame attempts at mockery and humor, it may be best classified as satire. I think satire is one of the least accuseable mediums when it comes to inciting violence.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see anybody excusing what was done. I think we all agree that these murders are inexcusable.

However, if I don't care that the neighbor's pet runs across my yard, but I know that it infuriates him if my pet runs across his yard and he might shoot my pet or even me, then it would be stupid of me to encourage my pet to run across his yard. Seems pretty simple.

Not exactly on topic, but related---inciting/encouraging/participating in the overthrow of a government in another country often does not lead to the results we anticipated or want.

If I know a group might become destructive if I publish something they may not like must I refrain from posting. Does that allow distasteful groups to avoid criticism by threatening violence? Does such a requirement lead to self-censorship? Does it lead to group censorship? How do we sort out which groups need protection and which groups should be open to public censure? Who makes the call that a particular criticism is “over the top”? Who is the censor?

For a couple of hundred years we have elected to error on the side of freedom of expression, however distasteful the form that expression has taken. We have endured all sorts of hateful speech against religion, culture, ethnicity, and so on. We have survived it all. Are we now to reexamine our time tested approach because one particular group reverts to violence if we do something they do not like? Where does that stop? Must we ultimately impose Sharia law to satisfy them?

As I’ve said in previous blog posts: There is nothing wrong with Americans expecting the rest of the world to “change the channel” if they see something they don’t like in American media.

We should not apologize for our constitutionally protected rights, most especially the freedom of speech. We should champion our first amendment to the rest of the world – not express regret for having it. We shouldn’t urge terrorists and murders to be patient with us. Remember what Vladimir Putin just did to the female punk rock band who sang a song he didn’t like? In how many countries on this Earth can you expect to be jailed, maybe even tortured for saying something the government doesn’t like?

The American record is rife with examples of reprehensible examples of free speech, there is something there to offend just about any belief system, but none of it justifies violence such as attacking an embassy or killing an American diplomat. Remember the Danish Cartoon about Mohammad? Remember the crucifix in the bottle of urine? Remember the reaction to these things? Who changed the channel? Who rioted and murdered?

The apologists who compare the "Innocence of Muslims" to shouting fire in a crowded theater are as predictable as the sunrise. They demonstrate their ignorance. The shouting fire example contains malice. The legal concept of malicious intent to cause harm (in this case panic). Where is the intent to cause harm in this clumsy, offensive little video by this well-established kook/trouble maker? Where was the intent to cause harm when the soldiers put the Quran in the burn pit in Bagram AFB in Afghanistan? Are these things stupid? Insensitive? Repugnant to some? You bet.

Are they designed to cause harm, or just express an objectionable opinion? Wise up apologists.

"The freedoms of speech, press, petition, and assembly guaranteed by the First Amendment must be accorded to the ideas we hate, or sooner or later they will be denied to the ideas we cherish."

Post a 13 minute YouTube video critical of the Prophet Mohammad no one forces you to watch?

Riot and murder.

The same clowns who think all the aforementioned should be protected speech in the US, are the same ones now stammering apologies to the Muslim world for the US constitution permitting such a slight to Islam. Despicable.

56 days folks. No matter what someone may think of him personally, or of his policies, it’s pretty obvious Mr. Obama is in way over his head and is surrounded by ideologues who are just as incompetent. At the very least they are rank amateurs who don’t know what they are doing. We can do better.

Have you any legitimate critiques of the administration's handling of this incident? And if you're not voting for Romney (whose handling of this incident has mostly been condemned as far worse), just who do you recommend as a replacement?

Or are you just cynically committed to repeating a lie to help it gain traction, even if only to help elect a candidate you don't even really support? Until you start making actual sense, that's exactly how it appears.

The fact some staffer named Larry Schwartz handled it is irrelevant – unless – you would like to make the point that some flunky named Larry is running things in the Cairo Embassy and the people who are supposed to be in charge just can’t figure out how to supervise him.

"...the fact that some staffer named Larry Schwartz handled it is irrelevant" Irrelevant?? What facile B.S. is that?

Read the article. Schwartz didn't just "handle" it; he was the author and publisher, without which your precious political spitwad wouldn't exist. It was an obvious breakdown in chain of authority/approval. No doubt you'd blame Obama for his even being employed in the first place, and scoff at the staff's duress as the compound came under siege.

And you tellingly didn't introduce any factually supportable criticisms or clarify who you're endorsing. Is this just your rhetorical equivalent of firing for effect as your retreat into the woods?

People working in US Embassies don’t just sit down and “do” press releases. There is a lengthy, very structured process that requires vetting up a chain of command, most especially for cases responding to the Embassy being attacked, the security perimeter being breeched, and the flag torn down and burned by an angry mob that is all over the television. Given the severity of the circumstances in this particular case, the ambassador himself would have had to vet this release. In my experience in the Embassies of Iraq and Afghanistan, a similar sort of incident in those places would have required the SECSTATE to approve it before it was released, probably even the President because it’s an election year.

So one of two things is going on: The process was followed and the Embassy’s Press Release was genuine, or some lone flunky just took it upon himself to fire off an official embassy press release to the media. Which one do you believe?

Once the amateurs running things figured out they screwed up, this BS about the lone-flunky was trotted out to walk this back. The facts are pretty plain: The United States Embassy in Cairo published a press release to the media that denigrated America’s constitutional freedoms and it had to be rejected by the White House.

Lets keep track of Mr. Schwartz. If I’m wrong, he will be the very first State Department employee I have ever heard of that decided to demonstrate some personal initiative and take matters into his own hands and ignore a lifetime of professional training and a huge body of regulations and SOPs about official communications, state department cables and public affairs, and just fire off a press release without an ounce of supervision or permission. Draw your own conclusions folks.

Regardless of the scenario you chose to believe, how does the Obama Administration come off looking like anything other than incompetent?

"So one of two things is going on: The process was followed and the Embassy’s Press Release was genuine, or some lone flunky just took it upon himself to fire off an official embassy press release to the media. Which one do you believe?"

Obviously, Sport, I believe the latter, because the former amounts to a conspiracy theory, which I naturally view with more skepticism based on Ockham's Razor. And it would be much easier for an official to violate this vaunted protocol than it would be to keep this sort of cover-up a secret. The details will be coming out. My side is the much safer bet, but I'm sure if this Schwartz was actually taking the fall for an approved release, then that will come out as well. You are betting on much longer odds.

"Regardless of the scenario you chose to believe, how does the Obama Administration come off looking like anything other than incompetent?"

Because there are rational limits to my partisanship, I don't blame the administration for a panicked and impulsive public affairs officer 5000 miles away. Meanwhile, Romney's entire policy team decided he should launch a political attack before the bodies were even cold. There's a real group of idiots that you can blame; they make McCain's 2008 team look like a MENSA summit.

"The same clowns who think all the aforementioned should be protected speech in the US, are the same ones now stammering apologies to the Muslim world for the US constitution permitting such a slight to Islam. Despicable. "

What about us clowns that condone burning your American flag, burning your copy of the bible, or putting your your cross into a bottle of urine (anyone;s urine will do)?

If you see me as despicable, I'll understand and will admit to being such. You are a better man than me. I respect your opinion, even when you are wrong.

You missed my point Liberty. The same people (clowns) who believe it should be OK (protected) to do all those vile things are the same one's who now think the dope who made the movie that insults the Muslims should have his speech limited. It is hypocritical. See what I mean? I believe ALL of it is protected speech.

From the video clip that I've watched of this movie I'd have to say it is art. It's not high art, it's really bad art, but it is art. Even if we can't agree if it's art or not, I think this should be protected freedom of speech. It's my understanding that people in Islamic countries can be killed for depicting the prophet Mohamed in any way, that would include drawing a picture, a painting, or making a movie. Mocking Islam or the prophet Mohamed will also result in a death sentence in many Muslim countries. So, if I paint a picture of a man with beard and put a title under it saying it's Jesus or the Buddha, it's art. If I change the title of the same painting to say it's Mohamed, I might be put to death in a Muslim country for painting the image of Mohamed. It's unfortunate that some religious fanatics take things to such extremes, but we shouldn't use that as an excuse to limit our freedom of speech and expression. It's a founding principal of our democracy that we can express our ideas and opinions. In the USA anyone can make a movie that implies that Jesus was gay and a child molester, That same movie shouldn't be illegal just because instead of Jesus the object of ridicule is Mohamed. Where would we be if our government decided that someone wasn't allowed to say they think Jesus lived with the American Indians and he'd like for us to all wear special underwear? Freedom of speech and religion are what make our country great, let's not use this tragedy to change that.

I'm thankful that in the USA we have very few restrictions on free speech. I support our rights to make a movie critical of Islam or protest a funeral with an inflammatory message. I don't agree with either of these examples of free speech and find them both troublesome, but our right to free speech trumps my objection to their message and the negative response they incite.

Sure, we have laws against yelling fire in a crowded theatre or joking about having a bomb on a plane. Those are reasonable restrictions that I think we can all agree on. I don't think we need to have more restrictions on speech because a small minority in a foreign country are offended any time Mohamed or Islam is depicted in a negative way. I don't think it's reasonable that our embassy was invaded or that people were killed because someone made a film mocking Mohamed. Although the producer of the film could reasonably expect people to protest his movie or even call for his head, I think most people are surprised by the unfortunate consequences and responses to this film. Do we really want more laws that further restrict our freedom of speech to appease a small minority of religious fanatics in a foreign land? Does the government need to tell us we can't yell fire in a theatre, say we have a bomb on a plane, and we can't make a picture, movie, or write a novel questioning Islam or the prophet Mohamed?

What do I think of as high art? Well, I would consider those works that are universally excepted as the height of human achievement, works that are timeless, those that inspire us to greatness. Almost anyone can write a book, make a painting, or create a film, but there are few artists that have a worldwide appeal and are commonly regarded as deserving of being taught in school, of being displayed in our finest galleries, or worthy of repeat inspection. Some examples of artists that I think have created high art would include Michelangelo, Pablo Picasso, and Vincent Van Gogh. In music, the composers Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart, all come to mind. In literature, there are a few that stand out for me, such as, Cervantes, Charles Dickens, Leo Tolstoy, and William Shakespeare. In architecture, I would point to Antonio Gaudi, Oscar Niemeyer, and Frank Lloyd Wright. In film, some of my favorites include Louis Brunuel, Alfred Hitchcock, and Francois Truffaut.

all I can say is this. talked to my son this morning after he came off shift. back when we had the koran burning fiasco in afganland, some of his squadron mates were involved in that, they had to fire on people and they were attacked. afgans and others were killed. now more people are dead and we have to worry about our embassies being attacked. the clowns who put out the film should be held accountable

It's looking more and more like a planned attack, not a riot incited by a cheesy video. Even so, some of you had your pitchforks out and found it perfectly acceptable to deprive an American citizen of his rights.

actions have consequences. all of you are talking in the abstract. the folks that give the radicals an excuse to attack us cost lives, our people and the attackers if we kill them. it does look like the attack in libya was planned. the others may have been incited by the video. the constitution is not under attack, our people are under attack. stand on a battlefield or in a street after a firefight, smell the burning bodies, the blood, the burning vehicles and equipment and then tell me these clowns do not deserve retribution.

Those guilty of attacking our consulate deserve justice, not retribution. We are a nation of law, not barbarians.

And yes the constitution is under attack, right here in this forum and all across America, right now. The really sick part is that the movie isn't being attacked because of it's repercussions but because it serves the interest of the religious right. Just like the mobs in Egypt or Yemen, some Americans are using the video as an excuse to throw stones and forward their religious (or in America, anti-religious) agendas.

i was referring to the dink who calls himself a pastor in florida and the egyptian who put this video out. we will get the guys who attacked the consulate. not a liberal and i took an oath to defend the constitution a long time ago.

"An American right-wing extremist called Steve Klein, linked with various anti-Islamic groups in California, promoted the video, but said he did not know the identity of the director.

He contradicted himself in media interviews while expressing radical views, and eventually admitted he thought Sam Bacile was just a pseudonym.

Pastor Terry Jones from Florida, whose anti-Muslim actions have included burning Korans, said he had been in touch with a Mr Bacile over promotion of the film, but had not met him and could not identify him."

So why is shouting "fire" in a theater not protected under the first amendment? As I recall free speech that is likely to, or intended to, cause "imminent lawless action" is considered not covered by the first amendment. The people who made this video, or burned another cultures holy books, knew exactly what their actions would trigger.

We in America (Liberals and Conservatives both) hold the right of free speech to be critical to our civilization. To us the loss of that right is more repugnant than what others often say upon exercising that right. But we are not the only group of people on this planet and there are civilizations that consider blasphemy to be the greater insult than the loss of certain freedoms - even the loss of life. Surely, most Americans are aware of that fact, even if we don't understand it.

Well, you see, those brown people see movies deriding a prophet and it makes them mad. Jesus was a prophet to Islam and you remember all the embassies that were attacked after that Mel Gibson flick where Jesus got killed, right?

A large portion of people posting in this forum believe the only speech that deserves protection contains words they agree with. The difference between them and the mobs in the mideast is degree, not intent.